Drive-by suing over access act despised uniformly

CHICO — Small business owners, legislators and the disabled community have found themselves on opposing sides, but all agreed Friday they are disgusted with abusive lawsuits in California where money is the goal.

Not a sponsoring agency, but one that took a major role in the discussion Friday was Independent Living Services of Northern California.

About eight members of the center, located down the street from the North Valley Property Owners Association office where Friday's event took place, joined or spoke at the event.

Forest Harlan of the Independent Living Services and several members said they didn't like what was called the "drive-by" suings that didn't result in better access for the disabled.

A handful of attorneys have made a living of suing small businesses when they find ADA violations, agreeing for a price to settle out of court. The violation doesn't get fixed, and the small business owner can face financial difficulty.

Both the Americans With Disabilities Act and Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 were referenced as vague laws that invited abusive lawsuits.

Proposition 65 requires businesses to post warnings about the chemicals they use.

Nielsen and LaMalfa talked about some progress in flexibility to get ADA violations fixed, without the immediate threat of lawsuits. LaMalfa compared it to a vehicle fix-it ticket, with time to fix the problem.

Senate Bill 1186 (Steinberg-Dutton) signed into law last year included provisions to inform the businesses about responsibility to comply with the law.

The law bans the demand-for-money letter, but those still occur. The new law requires any lawsuit threat letter include the specific corrections that need to be made, and details about the claimant's situation in facing barriers.

But several people said businesses have had 23 years since the law was enacted to make changes. ADA accommodations aren't required to pre-ADA building until some repair or remodeling is planned.

Harlan noted lawsuits are often used as a measure of last resort, to enforce the law when nothing else makes an impact.

"There are business owners who don't like the ADA," Harlan said after the meeting.

But one unidentified small business owner told of his case, where he spent "thousands of dollars" to move a toilet half an inch. He said he could have used that money for other accessibility improvements.

He said he was vindicated after six years, but it put him into bankruptcy because he couldn't afford to defend himself against the lawsuit.

He said business owners face a difficult mix in California, where changing regulations are complicated by new legislation passed every year.

He mentioned human resource is.ion, and the economy among the long list that businesses have to comply with.

Sutter County Supervisor James Gallagher said while he had two deaf brothers, he said people are abusing the system.

"People who send out demand letters, they're not helping businesses comply," Gallagher said, adding that there may be situations where inaccessibility can't be remedied.

A frequent comment was that for new construction and any permitting process, city or county regulators should be required to enforce ADA requirements. Speakers said that sometimes doesn't happen, so it's up to attorneys to enforce the law.

Scott of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse said there was no effort to get rid of the ADA law, but look at improving legislation to discourage lawsuits.

"No one ever imagined that the ADA or Prop. 65 would turn into litigation machines," Scott said.

But with an ADA or Proposition 65 lawsuit, small business face mountains of expenses, from hiring an attorney, to hiring an access specialist to determine the changes, and then paying for the fixes.

"Let's try to work through the issue without destroying a business," Scott told the group.

Reach Laura Urseny at 896-7756, lurseny@chicoer.com, or on Twitter @LauraUrseny.